[eru]

That's why I am in favour of more city states like Singapore, or at the very least towards pushing more responsibilities from the federal level to the state level. (The Catholics and EU call that concept 'subsidiarity', handle everything as locally as possible and have the higher levels only there to help when the lower levels can't handle it.)

Eg the FDA ought be to dissolved, and replaced with state level agencies. The state level agencies are, of course, free to cooperate and coordinate. Comparable to how the traffic signs work already in the US.

It's good for Hawaii and New York to have the same road signs, but they can agree on that voluntarily. No need to have a central party force them. Similarly, it's good for both states to have the same or similar rules on drugs, but no need to force them.

See also how the recent wave of cannabis legalisation has been driven by the states. I want to see more of that innovation and experimentation.

> I want a market where I can choose a highly regulated healthcare system or a system with no regulations and a system somewhere in between.

In what I suggest each state would most likely still have mandatory regulation, but it's a lot easier to move between states to find a place that suits you best, instead of moving between entire countries.

I have lots of sympathy for your position, and I would hope that at least some states would take a more laissez faire approach. But the policies you get will ultimately still be decided by what's popular with voters, and they can be a fickle bunch.

[vkou]

> Similarly, it's good for both states to have the same or similar rules on drugs, but no need to force them

I can't wait for drugs having to be certified safe in 50 different jurisdictions, instead of one, with 50 different agencies, each with a different set of politicians putting their thumbs on the scale having their own rules for them.

That'll really bring down medical costs, and will not at all destroy the incredible economies of scale that a single 350 million person national market creates.

I also can't wait for the cross-state litigation when an upstream state's equivalent of the EPA will be paid off to allow a firm to dump toxic waste into a river, that will be poisoning the people downstream.

[eru]

States can voluntarily choose to have a unified certification process, exactly to enjoy the economies of scale you are describing.

> I also can't wait for the cross-state litigation when an upstream state's equivalent of the EPA will be paid off to allow a firm to dump toxic waste into a river, that will be poisoning the people downstream.

How much is that happening between eg Canada and the US at the moment?

[vkou]

So, the best case outcome is a less-democratic version of status quo (just like how California unilaterally drives ~all automotive regulations in the country, with nobody else having any input on them, despite every state having the 'freedom' to make their own), and the worst-case is a complete collapse of the common market.

Is that really what you want? It sounds absolutely mad to me. Your ideology is driving you to ask for a monkey's paw.

[eru]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MUTCD-influenced... shows that different states in the US have slightly different road traffic signs.

And yes, voluntarily following an example is better than being forced to follow an example. Duh.

[vkou]

I'm not talking about road signs, which is completely irrelevant to problems common markets solve, I'm talking about how California can unilaterally apply its emissions regulations to the whole country, by virtue of being the largest, and most discriminating market in it.

Other states get the choice between not having cars, and following California's rules, despite having no input into them. Because it's uneconomical for manufacturers to produce custom, per-state models.

You're still forced to follow the rules, except that in the case of federal rules, you have democratic input into them, because you elect both the federal legislature and the executive.

In the case of non-federal rules, the largest state will set the rules for you, and you won't have any say in it (at least, if you want to have things like cars and drugs). That's not a choice.

Or, you could always take a look at how abortion rights are currently handled. Texas is suing people who get abortions in Colorado. Truly magical stuff. I'm sure the people in Colorado 'volunteered' for that.